SynthesisCurrent medical science2018
Preferred Revascularization Strategies in Patients with Ischemic Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Current medical science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease and Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Theogallin Protects Myocardial Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury by Inhibiting the Interleukin-17 Signaling Pathway.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2025Article
- Direct medical costs of ischemic heart disease in urban Southern China: a 5-year retrospective analysis of an all-payer health claims database in Guangzhou City.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Identification of Independent and Communal Differentially Expressed Genes as Well as Potential Therapeutic Targets in Ischemic Heart Failure and Non-Ischemic Heart Failure.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Neutrophil to high-density lipoprotein ratio has a superior prognostic value in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: a comparison study.Lipids in health and disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinically, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is generally used to treat patients with ischemic heart failure. However, the optimal treatment strategy remains unknown. This study examined the efficacy of the two coronary revascularization strategies for severe ischemic heart failure by using a meta-analysis. Studies comparing the efficacy of CABG and PCI were obtained from PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The quality of each eligible article was evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS), and the meta-analysis was performed using Stata version 12.0 software. Eventually, 12 studies involving 9248 patients (n=4872 in CABG group; n=4376 in PCI group) were subject to the meta-analysis for subsequent pooling calculation. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) [HR=0.83, 95% CI (0.76, 0.90), P<0.001; heterogeneity, P=0.218, I
Indexed as
Identifiers
30341512What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.